Overall sentiment: The review set for Catered Manor Nursing Center is highly polarized. A substantial proportion of reviewers praise individual caregivers, rehabilitation staff, activities, and housekeeping; many credit the facility with successful short-term rehab outcomes and describe the environment as caring and clean. At the same time, there are numerous and very serious complaints about nursing quality, safety, hygiene, documentation, and billing practices. This results in a mixed, high-variance overall picture: families and residents either experience genuinely excellent, compassionate care (often naming specific staff), or they report troubling neglect, errors, and unsafe conditions.
Care quality and clinical safety: Reviews reveal two contrasting experiences. Positive reports describe compassionate CNAs and select nurses/doctors who visit daily, provide hands-on attention, and help patients regain independence. Strong physical and occupational therapy teams are repeatedly singled out for producing measurable recovery and enabling discharge home. However, an equally large and concerning body of reviews details clinical lapses: medication errors (forgotten or delayed doses), incorrect charts and medication records, CNAs performing wound care without RN supervision/training, documented bedsores (including stage 2) that were not recorded or treated promptly, and infection-control breaches (gloves not changed, dirty diapers handled near patients, foul odors). Several reviewers described serious downstream outcomes — infections, significant weight loss, and even death after admission or transfer — that they attribute to inadequate clinical care.
Staffing, responsiveness, and supervision: A recurrent theme is understaffing and overwork. Many reviews describe delayed responses to call lights, long alarm activations, and staff being too busy to check on residents regularly. These systemic staffing problems are linked to neglectful episodes: residents left unclothed or shivering, missed meals, failure to monitor hydration, and unsupervised wandering of dementia patients. Conversely, reviewers also describe numerous individual staff members (CNAs, therapists, nurses, activity staff) who are attentive, kind, and go beyond expectations. Multiple reviews name specific employees (for example, Alejandra Armenta, Monica, and others) who provided exceptional, comforting care. This suggests that while dedicated staff exist, facility-level staffing and supervision gaps create significant variability in daily care quality.
Rehabilitation, therapy, and activities: Rehabilitation services are a consistent strength in the reviews. Many reviewers praise PT/OT staff for effective, attentive therapy that led to improved mobility and successful discharges home. Therapy staff and activities directors receive frequent positive mention for engaging programming (dance, music, bingo, luau) that helps residents socially and emotionally. These programs are a clear asset for short-term rehab patients seeking recovery.
Facilities, cleanliness, and amenities: Housekeeping and physical plant comments are mixed but lean positive in many reviews: numerous families praise a clean environment, attentive housekeepers, and pleasant common areas (dining room, patio, artwork). Amenities like a PT room and roll-in shower are noted. However, serious environmental concerns also appear repeatedly: strong odors, reports of feces or trash at bedside, water seepage through baseboards, possible mold, and DOH citations. Room conditions are often small and shared (three-bed rooms), and in-room equipment (TVs) is sometimes outdated. Communication infrastructure is limited (no in-room phones, only a few cordless phones for all residents), which compounds responsiveness problems.
Dining and nutrition: Dietary staff are generally regarded positively; several reviewers say the food is good or delicious and that the nutritionist was accommodating. Others find the food bland or unsatisfactory. The ability to bring outside food and specific dietary accommodations are noted as helpful. Weight loss concerns were reported in connection with neglect or refusal to feed, but not directly attributable to the dining program in most positive reports.
Management, communication, and billing: Management responsiveness appears inconsistent. Some reviewers state administration and directors responded to feedback and acted, while others describe dismissive, threatening, or unethical behaviors from staff or managers. A significant subset of reviews accuses the facility of aggressive/unclear billing practices, pressure to obtain power of attorney, difficulty obtaining refunds or resolving co-pay disputes, and attempts to bill Medicaid/Medicare in problematic ways. Several families reported poor social work or business office interactions and a run-around when addressing concerns. These administrative complaints amplify clinical concerns and contribute to distrust among families.
Safety incidents and reporting: There are multiple accounts of safety lapses: wandering, lack of supervision for dementia patients in wheelchairs, delayed alarm responses, physical injuries (bruising), and alleged abuse. Failures in documentation (wrong chart information, unrecorded findings) are also frequent, which complicates family oversight and regulatory follow-up. Some reviewers escalated to state complaints, and references to DOH citations and license concerns appear in the reviews.
Patterns and takeaways: The overall pattern is one of significant variability. Families and residents often experience excellent, individualized care — particularly from CNAs, therapists, and activity staff — and some patients recover well and are discharged home. Simultaneously, there are repeated reports of systemic problems: understaffing, poor nursing oversight, hygiene/infection-control failures, documentation errors, and aggressive billing or poor administrative interactions. These issues are not isolated; they recur across multiple reviews and sometimes with serious clinical consequences. Potential residents and families should weigh the facility's strong rehabilitative and activity programs and many praised staff against documented safety, nursing, and administrative risks. When considering admission, visitors should ask specific questions about current nurse-to-resident ratios, RN coverage, wound care protocols and documentation, infection-control practices, billing policies, room setup (private vs shared), and how the facility supervises dementia patients and responds to call lights and alarms.
Conclusion: Catered Manor appears capable of providing excellent, compassionate care in many cases — especially in rehabilitation and activities — but also has systemic weaknesses that have, in multiple reported instances, led to neglect, clinical errors, and distress for families. The reviews point to a facility with dedicated individuals doing high-quality work amid inconsistent institutional practices. Prospective residents and families should conduct careful, specific due diligence, request up-to-date staffing and quality metrics, and verify administrative/billing practices before admission.
